The Clark County Council had a workshop on Feb. 24 to discuss future planning with aggregate and construction industry representatives. This was yet another example of the “chicken and egg” scenario in terms of how Clark County operates.
The aggregate issue (shortage) was known three to five years ago. That said, since the population growth has been fairly consistent (7 percent) over that time frame, why wasn’t a comprehensive plan developed to calculate how much housing to plan for and what businesses are needed to support this growth? The county’s “stopgap” approach results in crisis after crisis mode decisions with consistent negative outcomes.
During this workshop, the aggregate and construction industry voiced their concerns with Clark County’s lack of short and long-term planning. It would have been much more productive had there been an infrastructure in place, including but not limited to the overall development, loading, storage and unloading specifics, etc. Before discussions can ensue, you need to identify the need, demand, an overlay, affordable housing costs and community viability. Is there a definitive list of conditions? How much aggregate is being brought in from outside Clark County? Is there an active mineral task force working directly with county staff? It doesn’t appear prudent to facilitate a workshop of this nature with so many important unanswered questions.
The track record of the county has been short of exemplary. As residents of Clark County and in the best interest of our surrounding communities we would like to share collective concerns and to encourage open discussions when executing major decisions that impact our communities short and long-term. Below are some of the concerns:
• There is a lack of transparency and communication between not only the county and the community, but among the staff within their internal departments.
• Lack of community participation in long-term planning to avoid land use conflicts.
• Council representation and responsibility to Clark County residents who elect them.
• Transparency and collaborative table discussions with local business interests.
• Need for equal involvement workshops with all parties; not just the individuals with special interests.
• The county needs to perform due diligence to research, provide substantiating data for planning purposes and to be accountable instead of making uninformed decisions that result in negative downstream impacts. There has been no evidence of a business model or comprehensive 10-, 20- or 30-year planning strategies.
• Council requires independent expertise to plan otherwise they are handing over their public responsibility to a private entity. This poses not only legal questions but the opportunity for corruption.
In summary, in order for Clark County to achieve positive outcomes on growth management, there needs to be collaborative relationships across the board. Without this, the county will continue to deal with negative fallout and potential lawsuits.
